do we keep George at the starting 2 position or do you think bird will make a trade for a scoring 2 your thoughts?

ps..G.hill will be the back up 2 w/ Lance as the back up point guard!

LeeTheG7

06-25-2011, 07:25 PM

The guy that your name is will be the starting two. From what I've seen he has a better jumper then Granger and is more explosive. You can't have a guy like that on the bench. George Hill is good but he isn't as good as Paul George at the 2 spot and he isn't as tall either.

Psyren

06-25-2011, 08:14 PM

Paul George.

I agree as it stands right now, Hill will come off the bench as the backup 2, and can also play the 1 in crunch time where we can pair him with PG for a good defensive backcourt.

If we make a trade/FA signing it could all change, but right now PG is likely the starter still.

Ozwalt72

06-25-2011, 08:16 PM

Paul might not be ready to play more than 24mpg over the course of a season at this point in his career. I do think he starts, but I wouldn't be surprised if Hill plays more minutes (though he'd be doing it from the PG position too)

PacerPenguins

06-25-2011, 08:25 PM

even though george isnt naturally a 2 i think he starts.... u just cant wait to see hill and george defense at the same time

beast23

06-25-2011, 08:32 PM

do we keep George at the starting 2 position or do you think bird will make a trade for a scoring 2 your thoughts?

ps..G.hill will be the back up 2 w/ Lance as the back up point guard!
Who do you think? George will be the starting SG. Our frontcourt is has only two rotational players, Bird sure as hell isn't going to trade for a starting SG. He will be trading or signing frontcourt players, not guards.

And Lance will NOT be the backup PG. With or without AJ on the roster, Lance is no better than 3rd in the PG depth chart. Hill is likely to be the first guard off the bench, filling either backcourt position.

BlueNGold

06-25-2011, 08:48 PM

Paul will start at SG with Hill backing him up. Lance or Hill will backup Collison depending on how Lance pans out. If Lance plays well, we may not see much Hill at PG. I think that's what the Pacers are hoping for. If Lance implodes, you will see a lot of George Hill backing up both positions.

notque

06-25-2011, 08:57 PM

Without question George.

Ramitt

06-25-2011, 09:17 PM

Oh please, there is always room for some question when talking about a 2nd year player. Some of you post way to much crap that is little more than speculation as if it were fact.

pacer4ever

06-25-2011, 09:29 PM

Oh please, there is always room for some question when talking about a 2nd year player. Some of you post way to much crap that is little more than speculation as if it were fact.

there is 2 George's now that is what he was saying it will be a guy named George. Either Paul George or George Hill.

Shade

06-25-2011, 09:32 PM

George, barring any major roster moves.

Shade

06-25-2011, 09:33 PM

Oh please, there is always room for some question when talking about a 2nd year player. Some of you post way to much crap that is little more than speculation as if it were fact.

Who has earned the spot over PG? Jones? Rush? :lol:

PacerDude

06-25-2011, 09:51 PM

Paul might not be ready to play more than 24mpg over the course of a season at this point in his career.
Why not ??

birdsandbats

06-25-2011, 10:17 PM

I hope Lance backs up both the 1 and the 2 and that Hill/Lance will get some PT together as PG/SG. Paul George starting always seemed like it didn't fit too well unless you got George in a Paul Pierce role where he creates a lot of offense for the team. As of right now, with George in the starting lineup, he doesn't get a lot of plays called for him which reduces him to spot up 3s while his strength is attacking and finishing/dishing.

Ozwalt72

06-25-2011, 10:27 PM

Why not ??

Well there's the possibility of the "sophomore slump" and:

The defense we saw in the playoffs is very taxing, hard to believe he could perform that way the whole season at 30ppg and not be a detriment on the other side of the court without absolutely huge progress. And as of right now, we have two (to four, with Rush and Dahntay) other players theoretically capable of producing part time at the position.

The coaches might simply decide 24 minutes of intense paul george is better than a less productive, higher minute usage. Especially when we have other players that can step in. Remember, Bird seems to think Lance is going to be a productive member of the team this year.

imawhat

06-25-2011, 10:52 PM

For those who thought Jarrett Jack was too short to play SG: George Hill's standing reach is 2 1/2 inches shorter than Jarrett's.

Ramitt

06-25-2011, 11:19 PM

Who has earned the spot over PG? Jones? Rush? :lol:

I make no claim anyone has Corky.

Hicks

06-25-2011, 11:29 PM

For those who thought Jarrett Jack was too short to play SG: George Hill's standing reach is 2 1/2 inches shorter than Jarrett's.

And Jack's wingspan is 6'7.5" to Hill's 6'9".

And while we're comparing, Jack's verticals were 26" and 28.5" to Hill's 34" and 37.5". So Hill isn't exactly as glued to the ground as much as Jarrett is.

BringJackBack

06-25-2011, 11:31 PM

Paul will start at SG with Hill backing him up. Lance or Hill will backup Collison depending on how Lance pans out. If Lance plays well, we may not see much Hill at PG. I think that's what the Pacers are hoping for. If Lance implodes, you will see a lot of George Hill backing up both positions.

If Lance plays well next season, I think it will be Darren's minutes cut at the starting 1 spot and not George Hill's at the backup 1/2.

BlueNGold

06-25-2011, 11:49 PM

If Lance plays well next season, I think it will be Darren's minutes cut at the starting 1 spot and not George Hill's at the backup 1/2.

I believe you may be right. Hill is one of those guys you have to give minutes to. He is nearing vet stage and can play both ends at a high level. Can't really say that about any other PG option. I recall him being a PIA...and now I'm glad he's....Back Home Again, in Indiana...

Anthem

06-26-2011, 08:49 AM

I think Larry made this trade partially with Lance in mind, as in "who can I pair with Lance to make him successful." If that's the case, I expect to see Lance in the backcourt mix as well.

As it stands right now, I think we'll see a 5-man wing/guard rotation where Granger, PG, and Collison start and Lance/Hill come off the bench and PG occasionally slides to the 3.

Next up, we gotta fix the frontcourt. The only two guys in the rotation are Roy and Tyler. We need to add two more guys: a starter-quality PF and a backup C. I could see either Foster or McBob being the backup C, but we still need a starter at the 4.

Anthem

06-26-2011, 08:49 AM

I think Larry made this trade partially with Lance in mind, as in "who can I pair with Lance to make him successful." If that's the case, I expect to see Lance in the backcourt mix as well.

As it stands right now, I think we'll see a 5-man wing/guard rotation where Granger, PG, and Collison start and Lance/Hill come off the bench and PG occasionally slides to the 3.

Next up, we gotta fix the frontcourt. The only two guys in the rotation are Roy and Tyler. We need to add two more guys: a starter-quality PF and a backup C. I could see either Foster or McBob being the backup C, but we still need a starter at the 4.

Pacer!

06-26-2011, 08:56 AM

I think Larry made this trade partially with Lance in mind, as in "who can I pair with Lance to make him successful." If that's the case, I expect to see Lance in the backcourt mix as well.

Are you thinking in the terms of who will fit best with Lance on the court, and/or off the court? Your post got me thinking that Hill's biggest impact on this team could be on Lance off the court, leading by example and mentoring him as he hopefully continues to develop.

Given Hill's outstanding locker-room reputation he could be a key in the make-or-break of Lance ever reaching his true potential in this league.

yoadknux

06-26-2011, 09:55 AM

Paul George will start. My guess is he'll be playing around 24-27 mpg. George hill will play more, somewhere around 28-30 (Last year he did play 28 after all, while backing up TONY PARKER and MANU GINOBILI).
Overall, I think George Hill will have bigger impact on our game than Paul George next year.
I also think small ball (DC/Hill/George/Granger/Hibbert) could work for short periods of time if we're playing against a small lineup.

Ozwalt72

06-26-2011, 10:07 AM

Your post got me thinking that Hill's biggest impact on this team could be on Lance off the court, leading by example and mentoring him as he hopefully continues to develop.

Maybe, but that's probably worthless to speculate on.

Hill could be a great pairing with Stephenson in the back court. A solid defender on the better back court offensive player and stick Stephenson on the other. A high IQ guy for Stephenson to work with. Stephenson's shown more of a "playmaking" skill while Hill is more of a safe pass, scorer.

How this differs in the back court from Paul George and Stephenson, is that Stephenson wouldn't necessarily be running the point out there with Hill. It would allow him to play a (very, very watered down, with maybe some lemon flavoring) Manu game.

PR07

06-26-2011, 10:42 AM

I think George will be the starter as the solid defensive minded 5th starter. George Hill will see the primary backup minutes at the 1 and 2 however.

Pacer!

06-26-2011, 10:45 AM

Maybe, but that's probably worthless to speculate on.

Hill could be a great pairing with Stephenson in the back court. A solid defender on the better back court offensive player and stick Stephenson on the other. A high IQ guy for Stephenson to work with. Stephenson's shown more of a "playmaking" skill while Hill is more of a safe pass, scorer.

How this differs in the back court from Paul George and Stephenson, is that Stephenson wouldn't necessarily be running the point out there with Hill. It would allow him to play a (very, very watered down, with maybe some lemon flavoring) Manu game.

Oh I agree that Hill is a great fit for Stephenson on court, providing he sees the court regularly this season...

I just see his supposed off and on court temperament possibly being an even more important asset/fit as far as Lance goes... Lance should aspire to develop into a George Hill-type player, a guy who can play the one and two, be able to defend both of these positions adequately, whilst being a consistent scorer and provider for others.

Hill's supposed outstanding temperament, discipline and willingness to learn, develop and do-what-is-asked-of-him, are characteristics which I'm sure we all hope Lance will soon embody.

I feel that Hill could be a major key in unlocking Lance's potential, as he leads by example, and hopefully mentors him off court... and given just how much potential Lance has, this may be more valuable than anything Hill can provide on the hardwood, even with all of his talents.

Trophy

06-26-2011, 10:46 AM

Paul should remain the starting SG at the start of the season and DC at PG.

I feel like the PG spot might be subject to change than the SG, but at is stands, I think we're sticking to what we used in the playoffs.

Brad8888

06-26-2011, 11:57 AM

Likely not Rush or Dunleavy or Dahntay Jones...

That leaves one of our three young studs Paul, George, or Bird's favorite "Ringo" Star Lance. My guess is that it will be George Hill starting next to Collison, and when that doesn't work, Paul George will be next to Collison. When that doesn't work, they might try Lance next to George Hill.

Who cares what position any of these scoring guards is actually playing? As long as one of them actually learns to pass when they bring the ball up the floor (yes, Collison is likely going to the bench in my view a few weeks into the season despite early things being stated that Collison won't be impacted, and that is because of his defensive difficulties when compared to Hill).

The Pacers days of running set offenses is coming to a rapid close. They will probably only have two players who would improve in set plays, McRoberts and Hibbert, and McRoberts could do OK even in an all attack all the time offense that we appear to be setting up to play (O'Brien will be quietly gnashing his teeth about how he never had the players to run such an offense during his time here, especially when Hill, Paul George, Danny, and Lance all drain 3's and suddenly nobody is complaining about the volume of 3's being jacked up with no offensive flow).

ECKrueger

06-26-2011, 12:39 PM

It is going to be PAUL George.

imawhat

06-26-2011, 01:19 PM

And Jack's wingspan is 6'7.5" to Hill's 6'9".

And while we're comparing, Jack's verticals were 26" and 28.5" to Hill's 34" and 37.5". So Hill isn't exactly as glued to the ground as much as Jarrett is.

Wingspan is irrelevant; we're talking about people who thought Jarrett was too small which allowed taller shooting guards to shoot over him. The play below comes to mind where Kobe took Jack down into the post and shot over him like it was a practice drill (watch at 2:20).

Standing reach is the key factor, which is affected by height and wingspan. Hill's long wingspan still make his reach 2 1/2 inches shorter than Jack. Wingspan is a bigger factor in lateral movement than it is in shooting over someone.

Hill's no step vert. (the first number, which is what you should be looking at as a defender will be jumping from a standstill) is super impressive, but it's not enough to overcome the shooter jumping first, the space created on a turnaround, the taller standing reach and the offensive player's ability to back down a guard that weighs less and get them off balance.

Didn't you watch the playoffs? You think Dirk can jump higher than Joel Anthony, Chris Bosh and or Haslem? Watch the highlights below. Dirk is barely jumping, but he's able to get his shots off easily because of his standing reach and the factors I listed directly above despite his defenders jumping a good 1 foot or more higher in some instances. Look at Kobe's shot above that. He's a good 1-2 feet higher than Jack on his release.

I got a question: if Lance turns out to be awesome next year, will we be able to retain him or can he just leave into free agency?

Hicks

06-26-2011, 01:58 PM

Wingspan is irrelevant;

I completely disagree.

But even though I see your larger point, are you really just going to assume because of this that Hill can't possibly play the 2? Because he's been playing the 2 for 3 years now in the NBA, and his reputation is as a good defender. Somehow I doubt it's as simple as you are making it out to be.

Pacer!

06-26-2011, 02:02 PM

I completely disagree.

And so does he, ironically enough... :confused:

Wingspan is irrelevant; we're talking about people who thought Jarrett was too small which allowed taller shooting guards to shoot over him. The play below comes to mind where Kobe took Jack down into the post and shot over him like it was a practice drill (watch at 2:20).

Standing reach is the key factor, which is affected by height and wingspan. Hill's long wingspan still make his reach 2 1/2 inches shorter than Jack. Wingspan is a bigger factor in lateral movement than it is in shooting over someone.

Hill's no step vert. (the first number, which is what you should be looking at as a defender will be jumping from a standstill) is super impressive, but it's not enough to overcome the shooter jumping first, the space created on a turnaround, the taller standing reach and the offensive player's ability to back down a guard that weighs less and get them off balance.

Didn't you watch the playoffs? You think Dirk can jump higher than Joel Anthony, Chris Bosh and or Haslem? Watch the highlights below. Dirk is barely jumping, but he's able to get his shots off easily because of his standing reach and the factors I listed directly above despite his defenders jumping a good 1 foot or more higher in some instances. Look at Kobe's shot above that. He's a good 1-2 feet higher than Jack on his release.

I guess what gets me is that the baseline for being a 2 is whether or not guys like Kobe Bryant can score on you from the mid post. I get the Jack example, but then in my case I thought Jack was a decent defender, and I never felt like that Laker game defined who he was on that side of the floor.

There's a lot more to defense, particularly as a guard, than how well someone can post you up.

imawhat

06-26-2011, 02:32 PM

I completely disagree.

How so? We're talking about height, which has no bearing or relevance as to how wide your arms are when measured to the sides.

Height is measured by standing reach. If you want to make wingspan relevant then factor it into the equation like this:

Standing reach=height + (wingspan/2 - chest width at shoulder) - distance from top of the head to top of the shoulders.

You can actually have a longer wingspan than another player of the same height but have a shorter standing reach. Derrick Rose and George Hill are the same exact height in shoes, George Hill has a wingspan that is 1" longer than Rose, but Rose has a standing reach that is 1" longer than Hill. Hill has some combination of a longer neck, longer head and wider chest.

But even though I see your larger point, are you really just going to assume because of this that Hill can't possibly play the 2? Because he's been playing the 2 for 3 years now in the NBA, and his reputation is as a good defender. Somehow I doubt it's as simple as you are making it out to be.

It's not as simple as I'm making it to be, at all. There are a lot of other factors like anticipation, physicality, angles, etc. that factor into the equation.

For example, a player who can learn to jump before the offensive player may be able to recover effectively. I've seen both Dwyane Wade and Russell Westbrook do this. A player can use his physicality to throw off an offensive player's balance and momentum. I've Artest, Chuck Hayes and even Toney Douglas do this.

What I'm saying is that George Hill's standing reach and weight are giving him one hell of a mountain to climb to make up for the differences he'll be facing when guarding shooting guards. I'm not sure he can do it, but we'll see.

Maybe this will help as a visual, but Earl Watson and George Hill's standing reach and verts are very close. Hill has a 0.5 inch advantage on standing reach and a 2 inch advantage on max no step vertical.

So Hill is between Earl Watson and Jarrett Jack but closer to Earl Watson.

Now, who did you feel more comfortable with on shooting guards: Earl Watson, the clearly better, more athletic defender, or Jarrett Jack?

imawhat

06-26-2011, 02:33 PM

I guess what gets me is that the baseline for being a 2 is whether or not guys like Kobe Bryant can score on you from the mid post. I get the Jack example, but then in my case I thought Jack was a decent defender, and I never felt like that Laker game defined who he was on that side of the floor.

Kobe is a hyperbolic example, but you don't remember people panicking when we had TJ Ford and Jarrett Jack on the floor? It wasn't because of offense.

mattie

06-26-2011, 02:57 PM

How so? We're talking about height, which has no bearing or relevance as to how wide your arms are when measured to the sides.

Height is measured by standing reach. If you want to make wingspan relevant then factor it into the equation like this:

Standing reach=height + (wingspan/2 - chest width at shoulder) - distance from top of the head to top of the shoulders.

You can actually have a longer wingspan than another player of the same height but have a shorter standing reach. Derrick Rose and George Hill are the same exact height in shoes, George Hill has a wingspan that is 1" longer than Rose, but Rose has a standing reach that is 1" longer than Hill. Hill has some combination of a longer neck, longer head and wider chest.

It's not as simple as I'm making it to be, at all. There are a lot of other factors like anticipation, physicality, angles, etc. that factor into the equation.

For example, a player who can learn to jump before the offensive player may be able to recover effectively. I've seen both Dwyane Wade and Russell Westbrook do this. A player can use his physicality to throw off an offensive player's balance and momentum. I've Artest, Chuck Hayes and even Toney Douglas do this.

What I'm saying is that George Hill's standing reach and weight are giving him one hell of a mountain to climb to make up for the differences he'll be facing when guarding shooting guards. I'm not sure he can do it, but we'll see.

Maybe this will help as a visual, but Earl Watson and George Hill's standing reach and verts are very close. Hill has a 0.5 inch advantage on standing reach and a 2 inch advantage on max no step vertical.

So Hill is between Earl Watson and Jarrett Jack but closer to Earl Watson.

Now, who did you feel more comfortable with on shooting guards: Earl Watson, the clearly better, more athletic defender, or Jarrett Jack?

I love your post and thought it to be informative, just to be clear, so I'm curious as to your thoughts on this:

From what I gather, from a physical standpoint George Hill is for the most part rather undersized when it comes to defending larger two guards. (this is on the contrary from my own perceptions: Having watching him play, it always seemed that despite being rather short, he made up for it with his long arms)

But- He has done it his entire career in the NBA. Very effectively. The guy doesn't have trouble defending what I suppose should be physically imposing guards.

Are we missing something? (Again, I'm being inquisitive not argumentative)

imawhat

06-26-2011, 04:22 PM

I love your post and thought it to be informative, just to be clear, so I'm curious as to your thoughts on this:

From what I gather, from a physical standpoint George Hill is for the most part rather undersized when it comes to defending larger two guards. (this is on the contrary from my own perceptions: Having watching him play, it always seemed that despite being rather short, he made up for it with his long arms)

But- He has done it his entire career in the NBA. Very effectively. The guy doesn't have trouble defending what I suppose should be physically imposing guards.

Are we missing something? (Again, I'm being inquisitive not argumentative)

I haven't paid enough attention to Hill's defense on SGs to be comfortable with my opinion. He's never stuck out as incapable to me, which is good.

Plus I'm not of the opinion that Jack was the liability that other people thought he was. I tried to imply that in my first post.

I'm trying to temper expectations a bit by throwing out the possibility that he might not be able to guard shooting guards. And that's not a bad thing; he might not be able to guard power forwards either.

We already have two players that are pretty good but people don't like them because their expectations are/were unrealistic. I don't want Hill to become the third because he failed to earn the starting shooting guard spot.

yoadknux

06-26-2011, 08:18 PM

I got a question: if Lance turns out to be awesome next year, will we be able to retain him or can he just leave into free agency?
Pretty sure he's going to be RFA

pacer4ever

06-26-2011, 08:29 PM

Pretty sure he's going to be RFA

Lance has 3 more years left on his contract the last 2 being team options and then he would be be a RFA and we would have Bird rights.

Wage

06-26-2011, 08:42 PM

Kobe is a hyperbolic example, but you don't remember people panicking when we had TJ Ford and Jarrett Jack on the floor? It wasn't because of offense.

Jarret Jack has been the worst defender on teams featuring Troy Murphy and Jose Calderon. Meanwhile, Hill has already shown that he can guard shooting guards at a high level. It's not some projection of potential or guestimation based on height and skillset. It's already been proven at the highest levels of NBA competition.

PacerDude

06-26-2011, 09:58 PM

Lance has 3 more years left on his contract the last 2 being team options and then he would be be a RFA and we would have Bird rights.
I thought he only got a 2 year deal.

pacer4ever

06-26-2011, 10:46 PM

I thought he only got a 2 year deal.

no he got a 4 yr deal only 2 years guaranteed (i have a very good memory )

I say PG as well.... But why are some of the guys saying George Hill can back up the 2 and Lance at the 1? Since Lance is 6'6 and George Hill is 6'2 wouldn't it be a little better for Lance to back up the 2 spot and GHill the 1 spot?

Eleazar

06-26-2011, 11:20 PM

I say PG as well.... But why are some of the guys saying George Hill can back up the 2 and Lance at the 1? Since Lance is 6'6 and George Hill is 6'2 wouldn't it be a little better for Lance to back up the 2 spot and GHill the 1 spot?

In my opinion they are both combo guards of the opposite type. Hill is more of a offensive SG and defensive PG, while Lance is more of a offensive PG and defensive SG. Also Hill's strength is defense, and Lance's strength is offense. So if they are both on the floor at the same time it would have absolutely no relevance. They would both be playing PG and SG at the exact same time.

P.S. I'm pretty sure Lance is only 6'4 not 6'6.

pacer4ever

06-26-2011, 11:26 PM

In my opinion they are both combo guards of the opposite type. Hill is more of a offensive SG and defensive PG, while Lance is more of a offensive PG and defensive SG. Also Hill's strength is defense, and Lance's strength is offense. So if they are both on the floor at the same time it would have absolutely no relevance. They would both be playing PG and SG at the exact same time.

P.S. I'm pretty sure Lance is only 6'4 not 6'6.

6'4.5 without shoes (which i learned today is the proper way to judge. I always though they played in shoes but my teacher said that's BS you measure them in socks so i said ok. He said Blake Griffin is 6'7 not 6'10)

sportfireman

06-27-2011, 12:04 AM

My mistake nba.com has Lance listed at 6'5. Still 2 or 3 inches taller than Hill. Plus Lance has not shown he can guard the quicker PG's. So I fill like Lance playing the 2 behind Paul George would keep him from being torched on defense as bad as guarding pg's.

Justin Tyme

06-27-2011, 06:14 AM

we would have Bird rights.

I have serious doubts there will be Bird rights in the new CBA. I have this feeling 5 year contracts won't happen too. If owners can't get rid of guaranteed contracts, I see them making contracts shorter. JMOAA

Justin Tyme

06-27-2011, 06:25 AM

no he got a 4 yr deal only 2 years guaranteed (i have a very good memory )

Shamsports validates "your very good memory." This coming year is guaranteed, and the following 2 seasons are unguaranteed.

My memory wasn't as good as yours as I didn't remember the 2 unguaranteed years, so I had to look it up.

imawhat

06-28-2011, 02:31 AM

Hill views himself as a 2, per the Pacers crate.

I've been rewatching some Spurs games and focusing on Hill at the 2. I've seen him guard Jason Richardson, Jason Terry, Jason Kidd, Steve Nash and others and he seemed equally valuable guarding 1s and 2s. I'll need to watch a few more games, including the ones on NBA TV tomorrow, but it's looking pretty good.

I'm trying not to get my hopes up with Lance but he'd make such a good duo offensively with Hill. Very few puzzle pieces fit together like those two could. Lance/Hill/George is very exciting to me.

Peck

06-28-2011, 02:42 AM

Let whoever wins the position in camp start.

My guess is that Paul George will be that player and that George Hill will become our supersub & will team with Lance in the back court a lot.

Hill plays about 30-35 minutes a game, ideally 20-25 at 2 off of the bench. George will start and play 25-30 minutes a game about evenly split, maybe 60/40 from 2 to 3.

Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

daschysta

06-29-2011, 12:18 AM

Hill views himself as a 2, per the Pacers crate.

I've been rewatching some Spurs games and focusing on Hill at the 2. I've seen him guard Jason Richardson, Jason Terry, Jason Kidd, Steve Nash and others and he seemed equally valuable guarding 1s and 2s. I'll need to watch a few more games, including the ones on NBA TV tomorrow, but it's looking pretty good.

I'm trying not to get my hopes up with Lance but he'd make such a good duo offensively with Hill. Very few puzzle pieces fit together like those two could. Lance/Hill/George is very exciting to me.

Yeah defensively he can guard the one, offensively he's pretty much pure 2 though. Which is why teaming him with stephenson is intriguing.

jeffg-body

06-29-2011, 12:23 AM

I see PG starting at the 2 and playing some time at the 3. Hill would be the first 2 off of the bench and I see him playing good minutes as the 1 as well.